On How The Planet's Going To Shit: The Undeniability Of Climate Change

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,717
More chicken little! The entirety of Siberia is burning! Australia wasn't started by arsonists!

Yet not many of the alarmist types care to discuss solar and cosmic factors on the planet.

Let me guess, men like Will Happer are frauds and 'in the pocket of big oil'?

If all these schmucks are so bloody worried why does the west refuse to build more nuclear plants? i.e. Germany.
Who is will happer?

no one wants to build nuclear plants because the have accidents and no one wants to deal with the waste.
 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,513
no one wants to build nuclear plants because the have accidents and no one wants to deal with the waste.
That's part of it.

It's also because they're absolutely, colossally expensive to build and then take decades and vast amounts of money to decommission.

I can't help but sigh when people critical of wind- and solar energy say that governments should not be subsidising those energy sources, and then argue that we should be using nuclear power instead.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
9,040
That's part of it.

It's also because they're absolutely, colossally expensive to build and then take decades and vast amounts of money to decommission.

I can't help but sigh when people critical of wind- and solar energy say that governments should not be subsidising those energy sources, and then argue that we should be using nuclear power instead.
That is me and France and what used to be Japan, Germany and Canada. Yes it takes capital investment but after that it is free energy. Waste is simple if you are not running the Seychelles.
 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,513
That is me and France and what used to be Japan, Germany and Canada. Yes it takes capital investment but after that it is free energy.
Fwiff, you need to do some more reading on this issue.

Although nuclear plants don't require a continual supply of fuel, the plants require continual maintenance and observation.

Also, as I said, the shutdown and decommissioning costs, and timeframes, stretch into decades. It's not just the spent fuel rods - it's the structure of the plant.

It can easily 10-15 years to decommission a plant and cost hundreds of millions of dollars per plant. Most or all of the shutdown and decommissioning costs are borne by government, not by private energy companies.


Waste is simple if you are not running the Seychelles.
That doesn't explain why it's so difficult to find places to build spent fuel storage facilities.

No-one wants them.
 

sirloin

Well-Known Member
Messages
769
They are building a new one in Finland. Going 10+ years over on the construction. Can only imagine how the budget is doing.
When running arent they also heavily subsidiced?

Not for or against. Just need to take everything into your calculations.
 

sirloin

Well-Known Member
Messages
769
But Pimpernel Smith Pimpernel Smith does have a point on supply security. You need a mix when going clean.
It looks like our plan towards neutral in 2050, is a combination of wind, solar, bio-fuel, bio-gas and geo-termics. We have never had production nuclear plants.

Keep in mind building that kind of infrartucture is also expensive and takes decades to build fully. And even though we have been going at it for years on end, it will take a lot of investments and innovation to get there.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,009
I can't help but sigh when people critical of wind- and solar energy say that governments should not be subsidising those energy sources, and then argue that we should be using nuclear power instead.
The big issue is not subsidizing, it's that their inefficient, not constant and bloody awful powering a national grid.

It the leaked EU paper, it's dawned on them that wind power etc, are not the panacea they're looking for. Hence hydrogen is seen as the way forward.

Although nuclear plants don't require a continual supply of fuel, the plants require continual maintenance and observation.
As do wind farms, etc.

But Pimpernel Smith Pimpernel Smith does have a point on supply security. You need a mix when going clean.
It looks like our plan towards neutral in 2050, is a combination of wind, solar, bio-fuel, bio-gas and geo-termics. We have never had production nuclear plants.
Did you know that bio-fuel is mixed with fossil fuels? And that's a scam in its own right.

I'm involved in all those type of projects including biomass with the exception of solar and wave power. There's something missing with wind farms and I still can't quite put my finger on it exactly. But compared to development of natural gas, oil fields, on or offshore or traditional power generation projects there's just no depth to it. And I think it may well be in many thousands of times less efficient as regards energy in and out. Of course, you can't do that much with wind, unlike a barrel of oil as regards petro-chemical industries, pharmaceuticals and fertilizers, etc.
 

sirloin

Well-Known Member
Messages
769
No I did not. Thank you. I’m not trusting bio-fuels either way. Use valuable land to create fuels, sound.. a bit off?

The problem you point to is super relevant, where wind only provides electricity.
Working towards producing hydrogen production, sounds like it could go somewhere.

Read that we aren’t producing enough animal waste, in a farm country, to use in bio-gas and turn into fertilizer. So “dirty” fertilizer is still used on the sustainable farms.
All those pigs making bacon and all those cows making Lurpak. Still not enough shit, to make the barley grow and make Carlsberg.

In the end, no single source, will give us the energy and other products that are needed.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,009
No I did not. Thank you. I’m not trusting bio-fuels either way. Use valuable land to create fuels, sound.. a bit off?

The problem you point to is super relevant, where wind only provides electricity.
Working towards producing hydrogen production, sounds like it could go somewhere.
There's an engineering outfit here looking to convert offshore wind into hydrogen and use the existing oil & gas infrastructure to store and bring back onshore and on into the grid. That's the scale of what's needed to replace fossil fuels.

Animal waste as a fertilizer is major cause of food poisoning.

At this stage, if we want to maintain standards of living and food security for the populations the likes of the EU think they can maintain, there is no panacea other than fossil fuels.
 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,717
There's an engineering outfit here looking to convert offshore wind into hydrogen and use the existing oil & gas infrastructure to store and bring back onshore and on into the grid. That's the scale of what's needed to replace fossil fuels.
ok great lets do that then instead of building a nuclear plant

At this stage, if we want to maintain standards of living and food security for the populations the likes of the EU think they can maintain, there is no panacea other than fossil fuels.
so the standard has to drop a bit. isn't that ok so that we don't all sink under the rising oceans?
 

sirloin

Well-Known Member
Messages
769
There's an engineering outfit here looking to convert offshore wind into hydrogen and use the existing oil & gas infrastructure to store and bring back onshore and on into the grid. That's the scale of what's needed to replace fossil fuels.
Agree.

Animal waste as a fertilizer is major cause of food poisoning.
Not the case here. Waste is stored in the big smelly tanks, and then returned to the fields as fertilizer. Only problem is that they have to use it differently (ie less efficient) and when they over do it, and it ends up in the lakes. Though eutrofication seems to be worse, when its from artificial sources.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,009
After Katrina they were helping them out. The storm protection system south of Zeeland is a so called modern wonder of the world.

Many get surprised when they staying parts of Rotterdam and find they are six metres below sea level.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
9,040

”The trajectory we're on now is not a good one, but if society gets its act together, we have time to save polar bears. And if we do, we will benefit the rest of life on Earth, including ourselves.”

Time to round them up in zoos.
 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,717

”The trajectory we're on now is not a good one, but if society gets its act together, we have time to save polar bears. And if we do, we will benefit the rest of life on Earth, including ourselves.”

Time to round them up in zoos.
This is your position?
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
9,040
This is your position?
Yes. Because this is the only plausible way to preserve the polar bears besides more quarantines a la coronavirus or 3.5b of the 7b people dying.

Don't worry - the Chinese will start bleaching the fur of some bears and selling them as polar bears.
 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,717
No, it's not, you're being played....

More chicken little! The entirety of Siberia is burning! Australia wasn't started by arsonists!

Yet not many of the alarmist types care to discuss solar and cosmic factors on the planet.

Let me guess, men like Will Happer are frauds and 'in the pocket of big oil'?

If all these schmucks are so bloody worried why does the west refuse to build more nuclear plants? i.e. Germany.
where are our resident climatologists?

 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,513
^Man, that's hot. I don't think that I've ever been in heat higher than 42-43c. That heat isn't bad if it's dry heat and you make sure you keep hydrated, but it's like being in a sauna if it's humid.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,009

”The trajectory we're on now is not a good one, but if society gets its act together, we have time to save polar bears. And if we do, we will benefit the rest of life on Earth, including ourselves.”

Time to round them up in zoos.
The emphasis is on ''could''. There's research that points to there being more polar bears now than 80 to 100 years ago.


Meanwhile back down near the equator....

I don’t moan about heat until it passes 40c. 50c is unfathomable without climate control.
When I went to Tehran, it was the year after they had 50c+ temperatures as reported by the BBC and MSM. It was the end of February so the temperature was not extreme when I went. I asked my host about the excessive temperatures experienced and he advised it had been the usual hot summer with temperatures occasionally breaching 40c. He said no way there was 50c in Tehran that year.
 
Top Bottom